Home | About | Donate

Far from Benign, Natural Gas is 'Bridge to Climate Disaster,' New Report Shows


#1

Far from Benign, Natural Gas is 'Bridge to Climate Disaster,' New Report Shows

Deirdre Fulton, staff writer

As the Democratic Party comes under fire for not taking a strong enough stance on fracking, and Donald Trump considers drilling tycoon Harold Hamm for Energy Secretary in his hypothetical cabinet, a new report out Friday details how proposed natural gas expansion in the U.S. stands to undermine national climate goals as well as public and environmental health.


#3

The Democratic Party doesn't give a flying fuck about the environment. The environment isn't writing them checks is it. $$ is the only thing the right wing Clinton Dem Party cares anything at all about.


#5

Most people seem to have a problem believing that a sane human being might simply not care whether what they are doing is going to hurt someone else. Generally most people will stop what they are doing if it is hurting someone with a few exceptions like violence, war and similar extremes. Normally people do not intend to hurt other human beings.

The major exception besides violence is of course MONEY. The quickest way to inhumanity towards others is when it is profitable.

All these fossil fuel companies and their lobbyists and surrogates all know that what they do will damage the environment. They may talk of the nation's needs and growth or competition etc but since there are alternatives it really comes down to the simple fact that all of these well paid highly educated people would have to find another way to make a living if fossil fuel use ended.

Mundane? Yeah really. What do tens of thousands of geologists, pipeline construction companies, drill rig operators, gas and oil heating companies and their sales people as well as the vast gasoline powered vehicle industry etc all do if we stop using oil and gas and coal?

They simply want to keep making the money they earn keeping things the way they are for as long as possible. They may say they doubt the science of global warming but the truth is that they believe it but they just want to keep making money.

It isn't just the investors. It is a very large number of ordinary people who need government to create an Alternative Energy Project that provides a successful business climate for switching to alternatives.

The free market will not stabilize on change. Change is difficult when keeping things the same is profitable. The free market sees no benefit in change then.

The government must create an alternative energy brand of capitalism that provides equivalency jobs and services as already exist for fossil fuels. The need is to create electric recharging stations out of existing gas stations so that the owners of gas stations have no reason to not make what will be a profitable change. The need is to lay down a new more efficient electrical grid that incorporates local energy inputs nationwide and includes net metering as standard etc. The need is to make alternative energy PROFITABLE within our civilization. To turn gasoline vehicles to electric not do away with vehicles. Governments need to recreate what exists already but have it dependent on alternative energy instead of it being dependent on fossil fuels.

In effect everything stays pretty much the same except it runs on alternative energy not on fossil fuels. Yes that would mean a sexist automobile add with blonde bombshells bimbos lounging on the hood of your car (which scratches the hood) but it would be on an electric car not a gas guzzler polluter.

Once you do that then a whole lot of people will stop denying climate change.

Even bimbos need a job but they should be able to get that same job in an alternative energy based system. :innocent:


#6

The Arctic is on fire, and it's certainly going to disgorge about one teraton of greenhouse gases by itself, unless humanity changes the course of things, which is a real option for us.

As an inventor I estimate that we'll need to spend in the ballpark of $2 billion per year, until we sequester all the excess CO2, just to keep the lid on the Arctic methane bomb. So far, the most ecologically benign methods of saving our descendants' skins are as follows:

  1. Transfer heat out of the Arctic Ocean and into the Arctic winter (-40 degrees) until the Arctic Ocean regrows its typical ice pack to a 14 foot thickness.

  2. Use wind-powered snowmaking machines to coat the tundra with snow in early fall and in late spring, to simulate what used to happen naturally.

We need research and first-stage product development right now, in order not to have mass starvation later.

Um, I don't see it happening.

www.DarwinAwards.com


#7

Your solutions are not workable and at best fantasies. Try thinking of the sheer vastness of the tundra + the immense number of snow making machines which do not exist in such numbers nor are located up north nor would be able to reach even a tiny fraction of the tundra each fall nor could be maintained in such remote areas or............... FUELED!

You say transfer heat out of the Arctic Ocean and into the Arctic winter? Do tell and your means of doing this is what exactly? To say nothing of operating in an Arctic winter whatever it is that you are envisioning.


#8

We can treat the symptoms as they worsen or we can treat the problem, an overpopulated planet using up all available resources.


#9

Interesting thoughts, PaulK. I've got another idea: Space Parasols! Launch millions of satellites into solar orbit between the earth and the sun. Once in position they pop open like parasols and block sunlight headed towards earth. Someone who passed math could figure out how many parasols it takes to lower the temperature in the arctic enough to bring the ice back. Maybe the screening material of the parasols could be very thin and light weight, something like aluminum foil, so that thousands of satellites could be launched by a single rocket. The parasols and launch vehicles could be made cheap in China. And maybe the rockets could be powered by natural gas, increasing demand for that commodity. Then Dems and Repubs could allow their donors to frack the hell out of the Appalachians to allow still more parasols to be launched. It's WIN-WIN for corporations, free trade, politicians, (slave) labor, and polar bears.


#10

The Gift of Poverty and Fresh Water Reserve Destruction:
Yes these gifts will be given to Appalachia

Appalachia-- as their Mineral Wealth of Coal was exported out of their region, so too will the Natural Gas.
Exporting out their wealth and leaving poverty behind.

People of Appalachia--You must defend your communities against this robbery.
As we all must do.


#11

Don't think of any of this stuff as "bi-partisan."
* The 0.001% want fracking to continue and increase due to the profits they receive. Their red and blue sock puppets do what they are told. Whichever one of them "wins," we will wind up losing or suffering what the Oligarchy wants us to.
* Its the American Fascist way.
* We the People seem to have little to do with it anymore.
;-})


#12

Who would do the work the 1% gets paid for if we depopulated the planet? The problem is greed, and the crooked government that is powered by it, and a population that thinks that they're being served. Stupid victims and short-sighted greedy exploitation is an excellent way to hit evolutionary reset.


#13

Political whores don't make money from saving Mother Earth or Her creatures of which humans are only one - albeit the most dangerous one.
Politicians make money serving those who exploit Mother Earth and don't give a flyin love about global warming or the dangers to all life on Earth.
Politicians of both parties go thru the motions of 'caring" and "acting" but are at the end of the day liars and corrupt scum who care only about their own power and wealth - tragically that's how our "representative" government has been constructed - to serve wealth and power and screw all else!
My great contempt to you all - I spit in your faces!


#14

Trouble is, it isn't really a free market. First there are the direct public subsidies...depletion allowances, and so forth. And the indirect ones...including the externalization of costs driven by fossil fuel extraction, processing, distribution and consumption. For example, the environmental impacts from climate destabilization-related disaster costs, air & water quality impacts, health impacts...mostly costs born by everyone but the industry.

In fact, if it were truly a free market, the corporations would not need to spend so much money on lobbyists and corruptible politicians.


#15

Snotty responses like this are just not warranted or helpful. We need ideas, inspired thinking, great will, and perseverance to get through this if it's to be at all possible. Lend help, lend support, or just shut up!


#16

You forgot to mention the millions of gallons of water required for each well, which when made toxic with fracking chemicals, then poison aquifers destroying sources of drinking water.

Right now the Marcellus Shale, which abuts the source of drinking water for over 16,000,000 people in and around New York City, is the site of the fastest growing and potentially largest growing of hydraulic fracturing wells.

Ain't we got fun? Disbelievers...? Watch Gasland 1 & Gasland 2. Oh, and the EPA, bought and paid for by the gastards, has falsified data and pretends that it's not happening at all.


#17

Wow! That was so helpful. Thank you, thank you, thank you. Will you be our leader, please? You are so wise, clever and kind, Mr. Hitler.


#18

"...corruptible politicians..." Is a redundancy.


#19

Speaking for the rest of the cockroach nation, we support hydraulic fracturing. But, could you speed it up a little? We're a bit tired of waiting for you all to end your silly presence on the planet.


#20

At least He's offering strategies and solutions. What are you doing except sounding like a wrongly PMS candidate?


#21

"I fart in your general direction!"
;-})


#22

Hahahah..hahaaha.... ha!!
Love this ... thanks...